Full disclosure: My firm built the campaign websites for Ron Wyden and Kurt Schrader. I speak only for myself.

Here's what the fall campaign needs to highlight, the GOP plans for Soc. Sec. and Medicare:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPtcc_2I-HY&feature=player_embedded

When I was a freshman in college in 1983, I challenged a Congressman that came to talk to us about Social Security solvency. I have known since I was a teenager that Social Security would not exist when I reach 65. I knew there was no "trust fund" and that the money was spent along the way, even when the citizens were being told otherwise.

Meanwhile my defined-contribution plans that I have contributed to since I was in my 20's have already done much more for my retirement security with a much higher return than my forced dunning to FICA has ever made. I wish I had the option to take that same amount I have paid for 25 years, and which was spent along the way by both Democrat and Republican Congress'.

I suspect the real reason Democrats are so against user-defined accounts is it would force Congress to tell the truth about how it used Social Security surpluses to hide how bad budget deficits REALLY were for the past 45 years.

But instead of solutions, I see a bunch of scare-mongering tactics, like telling senior citizens that Republicans want to take your Social Security money away.

You all know full well that the proposals offered were voluntary and would start with people 20 years or more away from retirement.

But telling the truth doesn't scare old people into voting for Democrats, does it? You all must feel so proud. By any means necessary, right?

Bravo Bill!

‎"Simply applying the Social Security payroll tax to all incomes would correct this inequity and bring in enough funds to keep the system strong for the next 75 years." Bernie Sanders

(Could we ask people who are not progressives to NOT get on progressive sites, bark out degrading stuff, all the while, in my view anyway, being totally wrong.)

One reason why drive-by right wingers like Ken are so ineffective on social security is they rehash the Bush "chicken little" argument that social security is doomed because there is going to be a shortfall in the future (78%). And their solution is to take even more money out of the system and divert it to Wall St. which will only create a greater shortfall and sooner.(Insurance systems work only when everyone in the pool contributes.) They hope they can convince younger people that it is doomed and give up entirely on what has been and will continue to be a successful safety net program into the future. They reject the fixes like lifting the FICA taxation limit on higher incomes because basically they want social security to fail. They are, and always have been and always will be unalterably opposed ideologically to a social insurance retirement system that provides a safety net for middle class Americans. So there is a fundamental dishonesty in their argument. And they try to claim because the social security system holds treasury notes, that is not real money. Although if private citizens hold those same notes, it is real money. Total dishonesty. So what we get is name calling in the end.

It's frustration on their part. They have been losing the factual argument and the political argument for 75 years and will continue to lose it, as long as we are vigilant to their dishonesty.

Raising the existing tax by 1% on the employee and employer would gain the same stabilizing effect for SS that removing the income ceiling does. However it does less to feed into some people's emotional needs to punish corporations and 'the rich'.

How about fairness as a standard? Is it 'fair' that over 48% of the earning population paid n federal taxes? So no progressive taxation is not a small d democratic way to raise revenue. It is however a cap D Democrat way to raise revenue.

But this discussion is specifically about Social Security. A 1% tax on the employer and employee preserves the status quo for an additional 75 years. Raising retirement ages also preserves the status quo as does removing the earnings cap altogether. We both know that the last one is a non-starter, so what mix of alternatives will our anemic congress be able to pass? Or will they do what they are so good at and punt?

Here we go again...

That 48% figure doesn't take into account FICA etc.

Also when defining the 'earning population" they count anyone including college students and high-schoolers.

Theresa I agree that we are not on the same page. We may not even be in the same book. We do agree that Social Security is in need of more funding. So, then comes the method.

Raising the earnings cap may be an alternative, but as mentioned above that is a dual edged sword as the benefits equation then is also raised. Removing the cap in its entirety is a non-starter; analogous to privitazation at the other extreme.

I understand and appreciate that you state you are not a Democrat. You are however not looking at viable alternatives if you seriously think removing the cap is a viable political outcome.

The Oregon Business Association (OBA) is touting one of the most powerful advocates of privatizing Social Security, US Rep. Paul Ryan, who is also trying to deny that his plan would do just that

Do you all know there is no ss lock box. Every penny of the ss tax deducted from all the pay checks over all the years including the employer match has been spent by the fed government. It is gone, all of it. It is not an investment, ss has become a ponzy scheme. The demonization of anyone who suggests letting people have a little control of their own money and destiny is outrageous. The only difference between Bernie Madoff and incumbent Democrats: Bernie is spending the rest of his life in prison, and the Dem who has spent all the ss money is on you ballot for re-election.